The Dirty Independence Question

[Comfy Bean]

It's not about charging or not?

I'm talking about tuition fees or the lack of them.

I was interested in what age you thought you would start charging?

How am I alright jack wink?

I thought I'd made it clear I was happy that my tax goes towards educating the next generation. I have outlined how in certain circumstances I reckon that it's worth the investment as we could be receiving 4 decades worth of tax to fund the next generation while teaching people without starting them off with massive debt.

How much of the student debt is recovered is also relevant I think.

[eFestivals]

It's not about charging or not?

It's not if you want best progressive effect from limited funds, no.

Until there's unlimited funds, that's all there is to work with.

 

I'm talking about tuition fees or the lack of them.

and so am I.

The SNP introduced free Uni to a big fanfair about how progressive it was.

The reality is different. It's not at all progressive, as it penalises the very poorest while benefiting those who are doing OK. The facts of Uni attendance prove this.

 

I was interested in what age you thought you would start charging?

 

are we talking real-world where there's limits on resources, or ideal-world where any fantasy can be achieved?

 

How am I alright jack wink?

 

You believe the current set-up is progressive when it's not. You're benefiting tho, so you cheer it on.

 

 

I thought I'd made it clear I was happy that my tax goes towards educating the next generation. I have outlined how in certain circumstances I reckon that it's worth the investment as we could be receiving 4 decades worth of tax to fund the next generation while teaching people without starting them off with massive debt.

 

And I explained that real life is a little more complicated than your take on things.

 

How much of the student debt is recovered is also relevant I think.

When Uni is free, none at all is recovered and tax income has to pay for it all.

 

And if tax income is being robbed from one place to fund free Uni - as it is, ALWAYS - they'll be losers from that place that was robbed.

 

As there has been in Scotland - the very poorest.

 

it's currently reckoned that around *50% of English student debt will be repaid via the current repayment rules. That's 50% that is available to spend on other govt-funded things, and perhaps even things that are good social-justice-wise, rather than having to rob the very poorest for that money instead (as is being done in Scotland).

 

(* there is an exact figure, I can't be bothered to google for it).

 

Edited July 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Can you be bothered to specifically explain how I am personally benefiting as you have suggested.

I am interested in what age you think we should start charging for education. How about ideal world and not ideal world if that makes it easier for you to give your opinion.

I accept that you disagree with my opinion. We know from the recent election result that mine is not an isolated opinion. I also accept that plenty agree with your view that young folk should have to go forward with the debt. Again the results of the election back up what your saying. As you say, some of it gets paid back eventually.

[eFestivals]

I am interested in what age you think we should start charging for education. How about ideal world and not ideal world if that makes it easier for you to give your opinion.

Ideal world - free.

Real world - where the best progressive effect is brought about, which might mean always keeping fees. The only way to know what is the best way to do it is via an examination of the evidence.

Rather than the SNP's way of denial of the evidence.

[eFestivals]

Can you be bothered to specifically explain how I am personally benefiting as you have suggested.

Because you clearly see it as beneficial for society. If you don't actually get a personal pay-back in cash (via uni attendance), you get a pay-back in a smugness for helping others.

Unfortunately, in this case, any smugness in helping others is poorly placed from a progressive ideal. The facts prove that the SNP's policy is anti-progressive.

We know from the recent election result that mine is not an isolated opinion.

People like free stuff. Who knew?

I also accept that plenty agree with your view that young folk should have to go forward with the debt. Again the results of the election back up what your saying.

When the argument is beyond you, resort to making it up.

Oh look, too late, you already have.

As you say, some of it gets paid back eventually.

And that's not an irrelevance.

People are getting their education AND other things.

[gary1979666]

Thing with the fees is that it's not real debt.  It gets written off after a time (maybe like in Greece ) unless you are a high earner and you pay it all off.  It is effectively a tax on the rewards of a graduate job in addition to income tax.  You go to uni, you do well, you pay the tax. 

OK, i know there are arguements that that tax could be spread over everyone's IT rather than the grads - but that's not a vote winner.  In Scotland rather than do that and increase IT, the Scotish govt has spent money that could have been spent on something more progressive.

 

In fact, despite calls that the tuition fees policy in rUK would discourage students from poorer families, it's confounded critics and done the opposite.

 

As for what age people should pay; from uni.  Education is compulsory up to 18, so that comes from the coffers, then uni is a choice and the above system, although not perfect, does the job.

[eFestivals]

In fact, despite calls that the tuition fees policy in rUK would discourage students from poorer families, it's confounded critics and done the opposite.

yep, that's the inconvenient fact that plenty of Labour supporters and all snippers don't want to acknowledge - tho of course Gideon has just destroyed the part of the English funding system that caused that.

Meanwhile the SNP's system caused a lower uptake of uni places by the poorest than the system it replaced, the very opposite of progressive.

 

[tolywoly]

yep, that's the inconvenient fact that plenty of Labour supporters and all snippers don't want to acknowledge - tho of course Gideon has just destroyed the part of the English funding system that caused that.

Meanwhile the SNP's system caused a lower uptake of uni places by the poorest than the system it replaced, the very opposite of progressive.

 

Yep, yesterday's budget may drag lower income England's access to higher education down to Scottish levels. 

 

I just find it incredible that higher education funding is held up as evidence of the SNPs progressive credentials. It's self evidently regressive. By design or incompetence, I suppose that much is up for debate.

[eFestivals]

Yep, yesterday's budget may drag lower income England's access to higher education down to Scottish levels.

yep, that was exactly my point yesterday in mentioning what Gideon has done.

 

I just find it incredible that higher education funding is held up as evidence of the SNPs progressive credentials. It's self evidently regressive. By design or incompetence, I suppose that much is up for debate.

It's clearly by design.

 

A way of buying votes from the not-thinking-too-hard's, basically

 

You know you're not going to be improving the lot of the poorest when you remove funding from those poorest to benefit the better off.

 

If it's not by design then it merely gets to show gross incompetence and the SNP and it's supporters shouldn't even be responsible for giving a kid his pocket money.

 

[eFestivals]

What " class " they are at 18 doesn't concern us up here hence...ability to learn is the key.

 

I'm just reading the latest Private Eye, and it touches on this idea in relation to an entirely different story, but which reminded me of you having posted this.

 

This idea would class as a classic liberal idea.

 

And not anything social democractic or progressive.

 

It also matches the official UKIP take on things, yet another thing which the SNP and UKIP share.

[LJS]

yep, that was exactly my point yesterday in mentioning what Gideon has done.

 

It's clearly by design.

 

A way of buying votes from the not-thinking-too-hard's, basically

 

You know you're not going to be improving the lot of the poorest when you remove funding from those poorest to benefit the better off.

 

If it's not by design then it merely gets to show gross incompetence and the SNP and it's supporters shouldn't even be responsible for giving a kid his pocket money.

 

simplistic ideological clap trap as usual from you, Neil.

 

There are many reasons for differing University entrance rates from different social classes & I have seen nothing to indicate a causal link between differing policies on tuition fees.

 

I've also seen differing statistics for each country & many seem to be using differing measures - a  lot of the England & Wales stuff uses getting free school meals as a measure of deprivation while Scottish figures seem to use the  Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation which appears not to have an equivalent in England. I have tried without success to find directly comparable stats  - If you can help me here I would be happy to have a look at them.

 

That having been said, we do appear to have a government which is committed to doing something about it. I doubt the same can be said of your lot. 

 

Quite a good article here:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-31549713

[LJS]

I'm just reading the latest Private Eye, and it touches on this idea in relation to an entirely different story, but which reminded me of you having posted this.

 

This idea would class as a classic liberal idea.

 

And not anything social democractic or progressive.

 

It also matches the official UKIP take on things, yet another thing which the SNP and UKIP share.

 

 

You really are  a twat sometomes.

 

 

It is the principal of universal provision which underpinned much of the post 1945 consensus in British politics. I believe in it although it should be accompanied by a more progressive taxation system which has not as yet been in the power of the Scottish Government. 

[eFestivals]

simplistic ideological clap trap as usual from you, Neil.

 

There are many reasons for differing University entrance rates from different social classes & I have seen nothing to indicate a causal link between differing policies on tuition fees.

while there might not be any formal 'causal link', the divergence of what's happened in Scotland and England does strongly suggest it's the SNP's removal of support for the poorest which has seen the attendance of those poorest to tail off.

And of course, the central point remains as fact: the poverty gap in regards to higher education in Scotland has been growing while the gap in England has been shrinking despite the high tuition fees charged in England.

 

That having been said, we do appear to have a government which is committed to doing something about it. I doubt the same can be said of your lot.

that's committed to doing it with money senrt from England. Let's include all of the relevant parts, yeah? We can pick up this side of the argument again if/when you ever suicide yourselves with self-funding.

 

As for doing something about it, robbing the poorest to give to the doing OKs is what the SNP have done and are still doing.

[eFestivals]

You really are  a twat sometomes.

 

 

It is the principal of universal provision which underpinned much of the post 1945 consensus in British politics. I believe in it although it should be accompanied by a more progressive taxation system which has not as yet been in the power of the Scottish Government. 

 

Yep, liberalism.

 

No recognition of the social disadvantages some have to overcome to reach the same levels of success as others.

 

Which is presumably why the SNP were happy to rob the poor to benefit the doing-OKs.

 

It is what it is, and it's not progressive in the way it's worked in effect.

 

It entrenches privilege, so even the middle classes end up saying "those scum don't deserve anything of what we've got". If not in words then certainly in effect.

Edited July 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Yep, liberalism.

No recognition of the social disadvantages some have to overcome to reach the same levels of success as others.

Which is presumably why the SNP were happy to rob the poor to benefit the doing-OKs.

It is what it is, and it's not progressive in the way it's worked in effect.

It entrenches privilege, so even the middle classes end up saying "those scum don't deserve anything of what we've got". If not in words then certainly in effect.

You have spent months accusing the SNP of robbing the poor.

Could you give some examples please.

[eFestivals]

You have spent months accusing the SNP of robbing the poor.

Could you give some examples please.

 

there's a support grant available to the poorest. The SNP cut that hugely to help find the money for free uni fees.

 

(Gideon has just done the same thing in England, and to a greater extent. And not for free uni.).

 

They also cut non-uni higher/further education spending, which is disproportionately used more by the poorest.

 

The result has been a reduced uptake in non-compulsory education by the poorest in Scotland.

 

FFS, you know these things already.

 

Gideon is about to make the SNP look good.

 

Still, it looks much better than the foxhunting law changes.

[tolywoly]

 

They also cut non-uni higher/further education spending, which is disproportionately used more by the poorest.

 

And used by the poorest as a route in to higher education (see the article LJS shared above).

 

The problem is caused by the distribution of loans/grants.

 

If the SNP really want to help low income students access higher education, here's my simple recommendation that they can have free of charge - give them adequate grants. 

 

Of course the growing performance gap between the best performing and worst performing Scottish schools isn't helping either.

[Comfy Bean]

Ideal world - free.

 

 

Agreed

[Comfy Bean]

Because you clearly see it as beneficial for society. 

 

Agreed. I do. Lets give the young folks every opportunity. They will have plenty of time to get into debt as they move through life but lets educate them and set them off debt free without charging them for an education. In theory they will re-pay society across 4 decades and of course some of this money can be used to educate the next generation. I may have mentioned this already   

[Comfy Bean]

 If you don't actually get a personal pay-back in cash (via uni attendance), you get a pay-back in a smugness for helping others.

 

 

Smugness 

It`s heart breaking what`s going down for our young folk. I won`t go over my view yet again as I`ve made my point on free education and I have accepted that you disagree with me. Fair enough 

There is nothing for anyone to be smug about here. Perhaps Salmond might have looked smug in that article I posted on this the other day but that is his natural look

Should I feel smug about ill folk getting free prescriptions ? or perhaps old folk getting looked after from the taxes we pay ?

If we were starting from scratch.......perhaps we will be in a few years....then surely these are the things that our taxes should be getting used for. 

[eFestivals]

Agreed. I do. Lets give the young folks every opportunity.

 

the opposite of SNP policy, then, as the entry stats get to prove.

[eFestivals]

Should I feel smug about ill folk getting free prescriptions ?

 

should you feel smug about not-poor ill people getting a freebie at the expense of the poorest? You tell me.

 

Oh, you have done already. You very definitely feel smug about it, just as you do about making it harder for Scotland's poorest to break the cycle of poverty.

 

You feel so very smug about it, you refuse to recognise the facts behind your smugness.

 

Which is why this same convo keeps on coming round again and again and again and again. 

[eFestivals]

Agreed

 

And we both agree it would be fantastic if a random billionaire left their fortune to you and me in their will.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world real people, poor people, are being fucked over by your smugness and you care so little about it you won't even accept it's happening.

Edited July 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

And we both agree it would be fantastic if a random billionaire left their fortune to you and me in their will.

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world real people, poor people, are being fucked over by your smugness           and you care so little about it you won't even accept it's happening.

 

Oh Neil  . Aye bring up the possibility of a " random billionaire " solving all our problems. Really poor stuff here. What about the tooth fairy, maybe they are the answer ?

 

I clearly stated that I support the SNP policy on no tuition fees and provided my reasons for this. I also said that I accept your opposing view - it`s all about opinions.

 

At no point did I say it was perfect or the answer to everyone`s problems. I also stated that I was in no way " smug " about this or anything else that I see going on politically around our young folk. I suspect the levels of child poverty and teenage homelessness will increase as a direct result of what has happened this week. LJS provided an article showing how many families already on the bread line will be worse off.

 

You seem determined to reduce every discussion to a personal point scoring exercise against the SNP, calling people morons etc. I think I actually described what`s happening as heart breaking and while that sounds a bit over dramatic, it certainly describes better how I feel about the current situation than your idiotic accusation of me feeling " smug ".

Of course if this makes you feel better then carry on 

 

 " you care so little " ......dear o dear. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I clearly stated that I support the SNP policy on no tuition fees and provided my reasons for this. I also said that I accept your opposing view - it`s all about opinions.

and I pointed out the fact that it fucks over the poorest.

And you remain wedded to the policy which fucks over the poorest.

And you stupidly believe it's a progressive policy that fucks over the poorest.

If you want to support Blairism that's fine, but please have the brains to realise what you're doing, rather than the stupidity to believe it's helping the poor.